DOMA Dead

[Gary2]

Also Rev. Ruling 2013-17, though I have yet to see it available at public web sites.

[David1980]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us...tate.html?_r=0

[Gary2]

In CA an exception was when CA deemed all RDPs to be considered the same as married for CA filings. It's about the only instance where the federal was different than the state.

I would have thought that all the states with civil unions or domestic partnerships (and income tax) require the CU/DP people to file either the same as a married couple or with a special designation that produces similar results. I know that NJ does, for example. (In fact, NJ has both civil unions, treated equivalent to marriage on the tax forms, and domestic partners, who are not treated as equivalent but who can get special exemption treatment.)

[joanmcq]

In CA an exception was when CA deemed all RDPs to be considered the same as married for CA filings. It's about the only instance where the federal was different than the state.

[tpnl]

Ohio requires . . .

you to file the same as you did federally. It will be interesting to see how my state deals with this issue. I already have a gay couple that is legally married and has relocated here. A mess I'm sure.

[joanmcq]

CCH has released a decent analysis here: http://tax.cchgroup.com/downloads/fi...OMA-ruling.pdf

And yes, there are a lot of unanswered questions still. But most of my clients live, work, and were/are getting married in CA, so I'm going ahead and filing them joint as of now.

[John of PA]

Very good summary Erchess.

[erchess]

Consensus

I think there is mostly consensus here. We seem to agree that lots of people think married couples always or usually save tax money compared to if they were not married and everything else was the same. We all agree that in terms of tax savings alone a married couple pays a tax penalty by and large if both are employed outside the home but save some if only one works outside the home. We all agree that there are many non tax reasons why a couple that is allowed to get married might choose to do so, even economic reasons. And above all what I am hearing is that I must wait an indeterminate period to find out the rules regarding tax filings of same sex couples in states like mine that do not currently allow same sex marriage and seem unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. From what is here I can't even tell a same sex couple whether if they went to say California and got married, they would be able to file Jointly even for Federal purposes much less State purposes.

[joanmcq]

Actually, there's no more sorting to do as far as my clients are concerned than if a heterosexual couple gets married. I'll file amended returns if it benefits them, and file joint from now on. Trust me, community property splitting for two single returns was and is a MUCH bigger headache for me, my clients and the IRS than filing a joint return will be.

[John of PA]

Thank you Joann, that was my point, many same sex couples are going to find a much higher tax bill now they have to file joint, just like traditional married couples do. There is much to hash out here, IRS has thier hands full sorting all this out.

[joanmcq]

I have one couple whose tax bill will be $13,000 higher MFJ than it was as Single/HOH with the community property split. They don't care one bit. The last few years of community property splitting are viewed as an unexpected bonus, not a right, and having their marriage recognized, their family unit validated, and having the additional 1,100 benefits trump a few grand in tax savings.

I do have one elderly couple that is grousing over their tax bill and won't get married.

But most are summed up by one who I had contacted yesterday to find out if they were domestic partners or married, and wrote back "we were RDPs, we got married today!".

[Gary2]

Just to be clear, I think you'll find that many same sex couples, even in those states that have allowed marriage for some time, have chosen not to get married and will continue to file as single. Also, in comparing the tax costs, take into account any imputed income due to benefits that are no longer taxable due to the Windsor decision.

I haven't done the math on all our open years yet, but I'm pretty sure we will be netting a small but noticeable sum, even after paying back my balance due should we stick with MFS (due to the health insurance).

But like most people, taxes were not a consideration in our marriage decision.

[John of PA]

My whole point is there are many if not most same sex couple filing as SINGE and they now will no longer be allowed to file SINGE. For those (which are most) where both are working, they will have a much higher tax bill. For those where only one of them works, then yes, they will now have a lower tax bill.

[John of PA]

Yes thats a good example of benefiting from filing joint, unfortunately that scenario has become more the exception than the rule.

[David1980]

I was confused, because off the top of my head I can’t think of any examples that could be more beneficial to file jointly, from the federal standpoint anyway.

You can't think of any examples that would be more beneficial to file jointly vs. two singles? What about where one spouse works and other doesn't, a stay at home wife or something. With no income the stay at home wife could file and get ... $0 back? File MFJ on the husband's return and now you've got an extra exemption, a higher standard deduction, and the tax rates are lower at the same amount of income (because the tax brackets increase at higher levels of income.)